Anna M. Buczynski died of malignant mesothelioma after decades of laundering her former husband Anthony’s clothing. When she was diagnosed with the rare, asbestos-related disease, she identified the DAP, Inc. caulking and glazing products that Mr. Buczynski had used around their home, as well as through his hardware business. Her estate filed a lawsuit against DAP, and the company petitioned for the case to be dismissed, arguing that the claim was speculative and that no causation had been established. The judge hearing the case denied the asbestos company’s motion and allowed the suit to move forward.
DAP, Inc. Argues Against Mesothelioma Liability
Despite testimony from the mesothelioma victim’s ex-husband that he had worked with DAP’s products from1976 to 2000 and that asbestos dust covered the clothes that Mrs. Buczynski had laundered, DAP. argued that the claim had not established that its products had caused her illness or that the products the man had used had contained asbestos. The estate argued that the company had failed to meet the requirement of establishing that their products could not have caused her illness and death.
To support its argument against being held responsible for the woman’s mesothelioma and death, DAP, Inc. relied on affidavits from a former employee, Ward Treat, to establish that the toxic material had been removed from the company’s entire product line by 1978. However, the court pointed out that this removal in no way proved that no DAP products were in circulation when Mr. Buczynski was using them; further, the affidavits indicated that some formulations of the company’s caulk continued to contain asbestos.
Judge Denies Asbestos Company’s Request for Dismissal of Mesothelioma Claim
Though DAP also submitted an opinion from an expert witness indicating that it was “highly unlikely” for the mesothelioma victim to have suffered enough secondary asbestos exposure to their products to have caused her illness, the victim’s estate submitted a report from an expert that specifically reviewed her exposure based on Mr. Buczynski’s testimony and had concluded that “when he applied, chiseled, removed, and sanded asbestos-containing DAP caulking,” it “individually and cumulatively caused Ms. Buczynski’s malignant mesothelioma.” Based on the conflicting testimony and the defendant’s failure to disprove its role, the case will continue for a jury to hear.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net have the information and resources you need. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn more.
